KINGDOM AND AGE
TO COME.
“And in their days, even of those kings, the God of heaven shall set up A KINGDOM which shall never perish, and A DOMINION that shall not be left to another people. It shall grind to powder and bring to an end all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.”—DANIEL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“PROVE
ALL THINGS.”
Our article on the “Scarcity of Gold in Turkey, &c.,” published in our sixth number, has been reproduced in the Advent Harbinger, of Rochester, N. Y., with the following “Remarks” appended to it by our worthy friend the editor; and which we take the liberty of inserting here under the caption of
NO
PRE-ADVENTUAL COLONISATION OF
As we suppose the above article was written in view of what has been published in the Harbinger on this subject, and as the questions embraced are highly important and not well understood by some honest minds, we in the spirit off kindness, and for the sake of eliciting light, offer the following remarks on the several points noticed in the article before us.
1.
Whatever may have been the
‘original plan for settling the question of the holy places,’ by selling
the land to M. Rothschild, it is evident that that plan has proved a
failure: for from subsequent authentic accounts which we have published in
recent numbers off the Harbinger, according to the absolute wishes of
the Emperor off Russia and the imperial decree of the Grand Turk, no change in
the ownership off the Holy Places is permitted at present to take place. And
besides, it has been credibly announced that Rothschild, at the last account of
him, was ‘dying at
2. If the ‘twelve tribes shall be redeemed without money,’ as the word of prophecy predicts, and as the Herald admits, it is reasonable to infer that their city and land must be purchased of their oppressors. Are there any such stipulations in the Gentile lease of two thousand five hundred and twenty years’ continuance from a certain date, or of its repetition of two thousand and three hundred years, from another period, or in any reference to it in the Bible, which justifies them in asking a price for that land, when their lease expires, or their times end? We know of none. They are usurpers, and have held and trodden down the land by mere sufferance; hence no Jew is under any obligation to purchase it of them at any time, and more especially when the time has come when they are suffered to hold it no longer.
3.
We fully endorse the expression
of Bro. Thomas, that ‘the restoration of
Isaiah 30: 17. ‘One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee; till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on an hill.’
Mark,
this text does not speak of ‘a lifting up,’ nor of a ‘re-settlement,’
of a limited number of the Jews to constitute ‘an ensign,’ but it
predicts that after they should be wasted or cut off by wars and other
judgments for their often repeated and unrepented of sins, as ‘a tree bereft
of branches’ or boughs, (margin.)—So they would be ‘LEFT as an ensign on
an hill:’ not ‘an ensign,’ but as an ensign that had been
deserted by the power that had sustained it. Precisely in this manner has a
small remnant of
Ezekiel 39: 9,
11-12. ‘And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and
shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the
bows and the arrows, and the hand-staves and the spears, and they shall burn
them with fire seven years.’
‘And it shall
come to pass that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in
Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea; and it shall stop
the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his
multitude; and they shall call it, The valley of Hamon-gog.’
‘And seven
months shall the house of
We cannot conceive how these texts sustain Bro. Thomas’ position; for they say nothing about Judah or Israel becoming or being ‘an ensign,’ or there being a ‘re-settlement’ of them ‘to a limited extent’ ‘before Messiah returns,’ but they do speak of the battle of Armageddon that does not take place until after the Lord comes—and instead of Israel being gathered to ‘a limited extent’ at that time, the 28th verse of the same chapter clearly shows that they will all be gathered then, for it says, ‘I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.’
That the great events predicted in the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel will take place subsequently to the coming of Christ, we think is incontrovertibly proved in our reply to Bro. Grew, under the head, ‘The Advent Near,’ in the Harbinger for May 22, to which we refer the reader, and also to our reply to Bro. Magruder, under the same heading in the Harbinger for May 8. All will do well to read those articles with care.
4.
If the ‘proposal’ relative to
the Rothschilds purchasing Palestine is to ‘become an accomplished fact,’ and
if ‘that fact’ ‘will be a sure and certain sign of that speedy appearing of the
Son of Man in power and glory,’ then it must be a clear subject of prophecy,
and as the prophetic Word is sure, Rothschild must purchase the land of
Palestine before the Lord shall come; for all ‘sure and certain signs of his
speedy appearing’ must be fulfilled. —But if it should turn out that Rothschild
is dead, or that the imperial decrees of the emperors of
5.
If “no one need expect that
appearing to be manifested until a Jewish colony be lifted up ‘as an ensign
upon an hill,’” the Bible must plainly reveal the fact. —But we say,
fearless of contradiction from any one, that no such revelation has been made
in that Book. If we are mistaken, we would kindly thank Dr. Thomas, or any
other person, to set us right by giving the proof; not however in inferences,
assumptions, nor mystical expositions, but in the PLAIN WORD
OF THE LORD. We can make nothing else the foundation of our faith, for ‘faith
comes by hearing, and hearing, and hearing by the word of the Lord.’
6.
If ‘the present calm—is for
the blossoming forth of Judah’s plant,’ or that a colony of them may ‘be
lifted up as an ensign upon an hill’—we would be exceedingly thankful to be
convinced of the fact, by the plain word of the Lord; for we now have no faith
that such is the case, for the very good reason that no such thing is taught in
the Bible, and furthermore its infallible testimony is against such a
conclusion. For the Jews were to be captives among all the world, until the
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
—Luke 20: 21. Then their next, second, or final gathering
is not to be a ‘limited’ one to be succeeded by a third, for a third
gathering is no where promised in the Scriptures. But a second is,
(Isaiah
7.
‘Still we should like to
see him M. Rothschild adorn his brows with the diadem of
‘Thus saith the Lord God, remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more, until HE COME WHOSE RIGHT IT IS, and I will GIVE IT HIM,’ (Ezekiel 21: 25, 27.) not to M. Rothschild, nor suffer him to purchase it.
Hence, should he ‘adorn his brows with the diadem of Judah’s kings,’ instead of its being to ‘the believer an earnest, that the crown of David would ere long illustrate the majesty of his Son and Lord’—it would shake the very foundation of his faith, relative to his ever being thus adorned, or wearing the crown on David’s throne.
8.
We see no greater difficulty in
the way of Rothschild ‘rebuilding Solomon’s temple,’ or ‘the
Finally, we heartily concur with Bro. Thomas, that the recent discoveries of gold in vast amounts, in different quarters of the earth, indicate that God is making preparations to carry out his purpose as predicted in Isaiah 60: 17, and other parallel prophecies. But we are far from supposing that these predictions will have their fulfilment until the Lord shall come; for the heaven is to retain him until the times of restitution, which God hath spoken of by the mouths of all his holy prophets, since the world began—Acts 3: 20. Here is an invulnerable point from which we all shall do well not to depart: there can be no restitution, of either the people, land, or city, in full or to a ‘limited extent,’ until the great Restorer shall come. This he will soon do, for the times of the Gentiles are nearly out. May we be counted worthy by him to take a part in the great and glorious work, and to share in its inconceivable blessings.
* * *
REPLY.
THE REMNANT OF A PRE-ADVENTUAL JEWISH COLONY, THE REFINED THIRD PART
ADVENTUALLY DELIVERED.
“Two
parts in the land shall be cut off and die, but the third shall be left
therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them
as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my
name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say,
The Lord (Jesus) my God!”—Zechariah.
The remarks in the preceding article are offered, the writer says, “in the spirit of kindness, and for the sake of eliciting light.” I accept them in the same spirit; for I am sure the editor of that Harbinger (I wish I could say the same of the conductors of all Harbingers) is too honest a student of the word, too sincere a lover of truth, and too much imbued with the benevolence of “the gospel of the kingdom,” to find it in his heart to be ill-natured towards a fellow-student, who does not see eye to eye with him in all things, nor occupy the same position as he. I am satisfied he wants to be convinced if in error. The progress he has already made from mere anti-creedism to the belief of the gospel of the kingdom, proves this. —He has found himself on the wrong side of a question more than once, and when aware of it, has honestly confessed that the position was untenable, and magnanimously abandoned it. This is the sort of a man I like to talk with; because his object is to get at the truth; and so is mine. Neither he nor I is infallible; for I have made a “confession and abjuration” of errors as well as he: so that we can meet upon an equal footing in this respect, and endeavour to enlighten one another.
Now,
at present he firmly believes that I am in error upon a certain point connected
with the restoration of Israel, which leaks out in the aforesaid article;
which, however, was not written, as he supposes, “in view of what had been
published in the Harbinger on the subject;” but as corrective of the notion of
a general restoration of the Jews, and a rebuilding of the temple before
the eternal king of Israel shall appear; as well as by way of comment on the
latest news from the east. My friend’s idea is, that there will be no return of
Jews at all (save as they have journeyed thither as pilgrims for ages) before
the Lord appears. We agree that the Twelve Tribes will be restored to the land
promised to their fathers; but he considers it entirely post-adventual, and
immediately subsequent to the battle of Armageddon. I differ from him in
believing, that there will be a pre-adventual limited colonisation of the
country by Jews, under the protectorate of Britain; and that the prosperity of
this colony, together with a desire to cripple or subvert the British power in
the east, will be the cause of the country’s invasion by the Russian ‘Clay,’
styled Gog, &c., by Ezekiel. I consider that this colonisation is going on
while
This
is the crisis to which things are now working out, and by which a necessity is
created for the appearing of the Lord. The Anglo Jewish colony is just ‘an
element in the situation.’ It is planted in
In
the battle of Armageddon, which breaks the feet, the Jews fight ‘because the
Lord is with them’—Zechariah 10: 5;
The post-adventual restoration of the Twelve Tribes is a work of time. It will not be consummated till the end of forty years after the battle of Armageddon. I have shown this in an article soon to appear in the Herald. This forty years occupies the space between the advent and the commencement of the thousand years; and affords scope for Elijah to ‘restore all things,’ and for Jesus and his brethren to torment ‘the devil and his angels.’ These things may sound strange in unpractised ears; but let such wait till they have examined what I have to publish on the subject before they presume to judge. There is more in the divine testimony than Gentiles of this age have thought of yet.
From what is now presented the reader may gather some of the points at issue. I need not, therefore, dilate upon them more just now.
The
latest news from the east is but a shadow of coming events. What I have written
concerning it was hypothetical. I said, ‘it is probable that the
financial scheme of the Turkish government may be the initiative of the
preadventual colonisation of the
It is just because the colony I speak of, will not possess the land by faith, (which is what, I suppose, my friend means by ‘right of inheritance,’) that they are so terribly disturbed in their possession by Gog. There can be no continued peace and prosperity there for Jew or Gentile, till the land is inherited by right of the Covenant dedicated by the blood of its future king.
I
have but little confidence in the idea of settling the land as the result of a
money transaction with the Porte. It may, and it may not.
I
do not adduce the text in the thirtieth of Isaiah to prove that the settlement
of a colony is to be the being ‘as an ensign on a hill,’ referred to
there; but to show that a small number of Israel as compared with the whole
nation, is in scripture language likened to ‘an ensign on a hill,’ or ‘a
beacon on the top of a mountain.’ To be ‘left as an ensign,’
and to be ‘lifted up as an ensign,’ are different ideas. I speak off the
colony being as a pre-adventual ensign. This will be composed of the remnant left,
(which our friend admits is as a deserted ensign, abandoned by the power that
had sustained it,) and of the new colonists, whose aggregation to the old
remnant does not at all affect its ensign, or beacon, resemblance. Now before
the Lord appears, the fair ensign, so gaily wafting in the breeze under the
shadowing wings of
The passage quoted from Ezekiel by our friend, proves a settlement of the land to some extent before the advent by implication. The battle of Armageddon, which breaks the Image, is at the Lord’s coming; the war, which reduces its fragments to chaff, is after his return. Ezekiel speaks of the battle in particular; and in the conclusion of his prophecy announces the result of the general war, which is not only the comminution of the whole image, but the full accomplishment of the work of restoration, as expressed in the words, ‘I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there’ in the enemy’s country. ‘They that dwell in the cities of Israel,’ who go forth to burn the weapons and bury the slain, are precisely the survivors of that colony residing in the land at the time of the battle, to save whom the Lord strikes the blow. The salvation of this third part by the Advent victory is the beginning of deliverance to the whole nation. It must have been pre-adventually settled in the land, or it could not be there to witness the fight. It would be very incongruous for there to be so great a carnage, and all the survivors fled, and no Israelites at hand to put Gog’s multitude under ground. The circumstances of the case evidently necessitate a pre-adventual settlement to some extent.
True;
the Jews were to be ‘led away captive into all the nations,’ (ta ethnee,)
but it does not say that they were all to continue captives in exile, without
remission, till the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. They were led away by
the Roman power into all the nations of that dominion; but not into ‘all
nations,’ and ‘all the world,’ in the modern Gentile sense of those
phrases. It is
It
is readily agreed, that there are but two gatherings of
When
I spoke of M. Rothschild adorning his brows with the diadem of Judah’s kings,
on the hypothesis of the news being true that he might assume the title of
emir, bey, or king, in the event of the purchase being made; I did not refer to
the crown of David, which none can wear but one of David’s lineage, and
that one will not be Zedekiah, but Jesus, the only living descendant of David,
who is both David’s Son and Lord.
The
colonisation of
EDITOR.
* * *
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE TEMPTER CONSIDERED.
We
have ascertained satisfactorily, because scripturally, as it appears to me,
that the thing, styled in the Greek New Testament diabolos, and rendered
devil in the English version, is SIN IN THE FLESH, He that “walks
according to the flesh” “serves sin,” diabolos, or the devil. The
mortal body is “the body of sin,” or Sin Incarnate, which with
its affections, lusts, and transgressions, is styled “the Old Man;”
than whom no imaginary devil can be more wicked, and defiant of God and his
law. The Old Man in his individual, social, and political manifestations is the
diabolos or devil of the New Testament mystery—1 Timothy
From
what I have set forth on this subject, our worthy friend will see that I do not
speak in Elpis
The
undefiled weakness of the flesh, enticed and deceived by sophistry from
without, is, in few words, the definition of the original temptation. The law
of God was weak through the flesh—Romans 8: 3, not through the strength of the
Serpent. Had the flesh been strong, the Serpent would have been powerless with
all his sagacity. But the weakness thrown into a ferment by serpent-subtlety
became beguiling; and the beguiling subtlety, taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived them, and by it slew them—Romans 7: 11. What I
have said about the Serpent in Elpis
“The
beginnings” of Genesis 1: 1; Matthew 19: 8; John 1: 1 and
From what I have said under this head, our good friend will perceive that I teach that the devil or diabolos had a place in the beginning; as really as the Serpent; and that place was in the flesh; while the serpent was somewhere not far off from the woman and the tree.
3. I come now to Mr. Cook’s third
inquiry, “Does not the New Testament teach there is a Tempter, as really as a
“Christ”—the tempted?” In reply to this, I remark, that in the case of Jesus, diabolos
and satan were both concerned. When he was filled with the Holy
Spirit he was led, Mark says “driven,” by the Spirit into the wilderness
to be tempted, or properly, to be put to the proof under Sin—hypo
tou diabolou. Their nature was his nature; for “the children of God
being partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the
same”—Hebrews
The
testimonies show that Jesus was “under sin” as a man under a burden. —He
groaned under it in painful travail. While among the wild beasts of the
wilderness a (similar situation to the first Adam’s) he felt the danger, and
desolation of his situation, and the cravings of a long protracted fast. He ate
nothing all this time, his life being sustained by the Spirit: and at the end
became very hungry. Luke terms this, “being forty days put to the proof
under diabolos,” or sin; that is, in his case, under the perturbation of
weakened flesh and blood. This was before the adversary came to him. His nature
was severely tried during this period; and it remained to be seen, whether his
flesh thus weakened would stand in the truth; or like Adam’s, seek present
gratification by transgressing the divine law. The end of the forty days
appears to have been the prepared crisis of the trial. At this junction, one
came to test him. Jesus styles him, as he termed Peter, “Satan,” that
is, adversary. This individual, probably, was an angel; for angels were
concerned in the matter, as appears from the testimony; and Paul says, “the
very adversary (Satan) transforms himself into an angel of light,”
or knowledge—2 Corinthians
Now
Luke attributes what this concealed adversary suggested to diabolos, or
one causing to transgress, but in this case without success; for they were
suggestions to Jesus under the workings of sin’s flesh, seeing that “he was
in all things put to the proof according to the likeness without offence.”
The visitor, though styled “devil,” was not diabolos within, as in our
case, but an excitant thereof; in “the likeness,” or sin’s flesh;
therefore his sayings are recorded as those of diabolos. Jesus being
begotten of God, as was Adam the first likewise, and not of the will of sin’s
flesh, the promptings to transgression did not proceed from within. In
this the form of sin’s flesh he assumed, differed from the form we possess. The
promptings in our case do often proceed from within. In the two
In the second Adam’s case the testing adversary failed to move him from the stand he had taken of absolute obedience to the will of God, whatever might ensue. He appealed to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, but all without effect. The law of the Spirit of life within him was too strong for these appeals. He extinguished their effect by the word of faith, which was his shield, and emerged from the trial undefiled. The tester of his allegiance then left him; and whatever perturbation may have been excited, it subsided into the peacefulness of a conscience void of offence towards God.
In
studying Christ’s trial it is important not to forget what I have intimated
above about his nature; because it was the point of difference in the
nature of the two
In Hebrews 4: 15, the phrase “form of Sin’s flesh” is expressed by the single word homoiotes, “likeness, resemblance, or similitude;” as, kata panta kath, homoioteta, “in all things according to the likeness.” One thing may resemble another without being identical in every particular. This was the case with Christ’s flesh. It was Sin’s flesh so far as its maternity was concerned, but not as to its fatherhood. In this he differed from the Jews, who had Sin’s flesh for their parentage on both sides, which they illustrated in their persecution of their maternal brother, who was “born after the Spirit;” thereby proving that they were the children and slaves of father, Sin, or diabolos. Still Christ’s paternity did not destroy the physical likeness of his flesh to Abraham’s seed; it only removed from it the reigning principle hereditarily transmitted by the will of man, called diabolos, or “devil.” His flesh, however, was still reduced in strength below that of Adam’s original nature, because of its maternal defilement. Hence, to place it on a par with the first Adam’s, that there might be equality of strength, Jesus was anointed or Christened, by which he became “full of the Holy Spirit.” This filling did not destroy the homoiotes or likeness to Sin’s flesh. It was still possible for Christ to feel the force and influence of sophistical appeals to the lusts of Sin’s flesh with which he was burdened as with “a loathsome disease”—Psalm 38: 6-7. Hence, says the apostle, “he was put to the proof in all things or according to the likeness,” or resemblance of his flesh to his brethren’s in its susceptibilities, “without offence.”
There being no reigning diabolos, “devil,” or Sin, transmitted by the will of man in Adam or Christ, as in the flesh of all mankind, that causing not to stand in the truth, or diabolos, is in their cases, and in their’s alone, to be referred to the Serpent and the Angel of light. But this does not constitute them what the Gentiles call “the Devil,” or “His Satanic Majesty.” The Serpent, because of his agency in the affair, became the Bible symbol representative of the evil he had done in the unconsciously immoral use he had made of what he knew by observation, and was able to express in speech. —It would be very injudicious to rush to the conclusion that, because the Serpent and the Angel of light stood related to the two Adams as the diabolos, or that causing to err, therefore, whenever the word diabolos occurs, it means the serpent or angel of light. If it did, it by no means follows that it would signify the Devil of gentile “organised theology,” which is as dissimilar from them as they are from one another. Christ was not put to the proof by a serpent, nor by the serpent; nor was Adam by an angel of knowledge, nor by the angel of light, who offered his suggestions to Jesus. They were both probed to the quick; but by provers suitable to the times, place, and circumstances around them.
But, though the proving agents in the trials of the two Adams have never experimented upon any others of our race, Christ’s brethren stand related to a power, styled ho peiradzoon, which is rendered in the English version, “the tempter”—1 Thessalonians 3: 5. —By reference to the passage it is manifest that the tempter alluded to there was not an invisible Devil, but a persecuting power under which the disciples lived in Thessalonica. They were suffering persecution when Paul wrote to them for their encouragement. “Let no man,” says he, “be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto.” He then refers to what he had told them before, and not them only, but all others; that “it is through much tribulation that they (the baptised) must enter the Kingdom of God.” But he reminds them that they are not alone in their trouble, but are “suffering like things of their countrymen” that Christ’s brethren on Judea had of the Jews. This saying reveals the power as that of the Gentile authorities in Thessalonica, who, stirred up by “lewd fellows of the baser sort,” were carrying into effect as far as they could “the decrees of Caesar,” with all the pains and penalties annexed, against the refractory—Acts 17: 5-8; 2 Thessalonians 1: 4-5. These were torture, imprisonment, and death, which served to prove their inseparable devotion to the doctrine of God’s Kingdom, for which they suffered. These “persecutions and tribulations” might be avoided upon one condition which was offered to them by the enemy—if they would renounce the faith, and burn incense to Caesar’s image. This was the temptation offered to them by the tempting power. If they yielded to the temptation, they saved their lives, but lost “God’s Kingdom and glory.” Fearing this result in some cases, Paul says, “I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain.”
In the case before us the tempter was the imperial pagan Roman power, styled in the apocalypse, “a great red dragon,” and “the great Dragon, the ancient Serpent, the surnamed diabolos and the Satan.”—Revelation 12: 3, 9. The Dragon, or Serpent, was the symbol of the Roman Sovereignty selected by the Romans themselves as representative of its imperiality. Chrysostom, who flourished in the 4th century, says that “the Emperors wore among other things to distinguish them silken robes embroidered with gold, in which Dragons were represented.” Gibbon also says, speaking of the procession of Constantine from Milan to Rome, “He was encompassed by the glittering arms of the numerous squadrons of his guards and cuirassiers. Their streaming banners of silk, embroidered with gold and shaped in the form of Dragons, waved round the person of the emperor.” The emperor Constantine speaks of the Dragon as the symbol of the pagan Roman Sovereignty in his epistle to Eusebius and other bishops concerning the rebuilding and repair of churches. “Liberty being now restored,” says he, “and that Dragon being removed from the administration of public affairs, by the providence of the great God, and by my ministry; I esteem the great power of God to have been made manifest even to all.” Moreover, on the testimony of Eusebius, we are informed, that a picture of Constantine was set up over the palace gate, with the cross over his head, and under his feet “the great enemy of mankind, who persecuted the church by means of impious tyrants, in the form of a Dragon,” transfixed with a spear through the midst of his body, and falling headlong into the depth of the sea. Hence it is evident that the species of serpent called the dragon was as much the symbol of the Roman power, as the lion is of the British at this day. The Romans probably borrowed it from Egypt, which had become a province of their dominion. When an independent monarchy under the Pharaohs, its majesty was represented by “the great dragon, that lieth in the midst of his rivers.” The annexation of so ancient and renowned a kingdom was very likely celebrated by the adoption of its ancient symbol into the Roman heraldry. Hence, the Roman dragon is styled “the ancient serpent,” or the Egyptian—Revelation 11: 8—The great city, or Roman empire, is here figuratively styled Egypt.
Whether God in his providence influenced the governments of the world to represent their several sovereignties by peculiar symbols, I cannot say; but that he has adopted them in his word when treating of their policy and destiny relatively to Israel, and the Saints, is beyond all question. The Egyptian serpent, the Assyrian lion, the Persian ram, the Macedonian goat, the French frogs, &c., are all examples that he has done so. The adoption by the Romans of the serpent, styled in the prophets, “the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; the dragon that is in the sea”—Isaiah 27: 1, as the symbol of the sovereignty that rules the imperial territory, is singularly appropriate. Its scriptural fitness is seen in the fact, that “all the power of the enemy” with which God’s people have had to contend on the arena of prophecy, originated in the sophistry of the serpent; and is found civilly and ecclesiastically organised in the ancient and modern imperial dominion of the Roman earth. This power has ever been the adversary of Israel after the flesh and spirit, and of the truth, since the Holy land became a Roman province; and will so continue to be “until the Ancient of Days shall come, and judgment shall be given to the saints of the Most High; and the time comes that they shall take the kingdom, and possess it”—Daniel 7: 22, 18. It is not only their Adversary in making war upon them as a people who will hereafter seize upon its dominion; but when it gets them into its clutches, it endeavours to turn them from the faith, and to compel them to embrace its own superstition, and so cause them not to stand in the truth. It is, therefore, a power causing to cross the line, or to transgress the divine law, that is, a diabolos, as well as THE ADVERSARY, or ho Satanas. It is for this reason the Spirit has “surnamed,” the imperial serpent, in the words of the English version, “the Devil and Satan,” or more articularly, “the surnamed Devil and the Satan”—ho kaloumenos diabolos kai ho Satanas. —And here we will pause till our next issue.
EDITOR.
* * *
MISSION TO THE DEAD.
Immortal-Soulism is producing its own peculiar fruit in the sectarian churches and denominations, or Brotherhoods, Pagan Mesmerism, which is its ancient sire, and the parent also of all the spiritologies of our day, is possessing them with confounding effect. The brotherhood theologies have prepared professors for any and all of the speculations arising out of surrounding chaos. They have alienated the people from Moses and the Prophets; so that being disarmed of the Spirit’s sword, they are falling defencelessly, by thousands, before Mesmerism, theologically interpreted. Mesmerism proves all things conceived by the fleshly mind, because it is of and from the flesh. It begins in the flesh and ends in the flesh. Thus the circle is complete. Animal magnetism reveals the flesh to the flesh, being the spirit of the flesh. It is the magic lantern to the thalami off the optic nerves, passing before them the spectralia of “philosophy and vain deceit.” Hence, sky-kingdom heavens, aerial sheols in outer darkness fifty miles sky-high, subterranean hobgoblin hells, spirit-worlds, immortal souls in mortal sinful flesh, baby-spirit salvation, pre-resurrection ghost-life, adult salvation without belief or obedience of the gospel, and a thousand other modifications of foolishness, are all satisfactorily proved in the opinion of the carnal mind by mesmerism. The brain thinks mesmerically, so that in the absence of scriptural knowledge, it approves them all. Thus, great flaming revivalists, to whom the bible was more or less of an embarrassment, have become so illuminated by animal magnetism as to reject the scriptures altogether. Now, it is a notable fact, that while they have done this, they continue brawling advocates for the “immortal soul” of the flesh, and the “spirit-world” adapted to it. This is consistent enough, for the Bible gives no aid and comfort to immortal-soulism; so that by throwing it aside as of inferior authority to mesmerism, or of no authority at all, their position is strengthened in argument with those who argue against immortal-soulism on natural grounds. The only immortality the Bible reveals is immortality of a resurrection, or transformed, body. It promises this only to the saints of God, to qualify them for an endless possession of his kingdom. The Bible is therefore unencumbered with the foolishness of Mesmeric Theology. It teaches nothing that the flesh approves in relation to the world to come. This conviction relieves us of much lumber, and enables us to make short work of otherwise interminable logomachies.
Mesmerised theology seems to be preparing troublous times for the Campbellite Brotherhood, among the rest. For years past Mr. C. has been labouring in a certain direction, which the editor of the “Christian Magazine” appears determined to alter. Mr. C., I believe, holds to a hobgoblin hell, in which immortal-souls writhe and shriek in eternal torture. He regards this as a Bible truth, and quite consistent with the attributes of God! The “Magazine’s” theory is opposed to this. “Speculations,” says J. B. F., “as to the exact nature and duration of punishment are unwise, because neither is clearly revealed. The Spirit which dictated the Bible, seems to have intended that an indefiniteness should spread itself over the whole subject.”—M. H., p. 393. These few words, if received, tell with humbling effect upon my friend at Bethany. They tell him, in effect, that he has misconceived the whole matter; which is doubtless true, without adding an atom of credibility to the Magazine’s assumption. Mr. C. has been contending for “the exact nature and duration of punishment” for a long period; but his editorial brother in faith tells him that they are not revealed: therefore all he has been writing hitherto is mere speculation; and “speculations,” says the Magazine, “are unwise.” Well, I do admit that my friend has been a very unwise and even weak speculator in his time, upon a multitude of topics; but with all his wanderings and meanderings, it must be confessed that he is right in repudiating the notion of the “indefiniteness” of the whole subject of punishment. Though Mr. C. cannot define the nature and duration of the punishment revealed in the Bible, its definiteness is nevertheless exhibited there. But to understand the subject, the mission of the Christ must be understood; concerning this, however, Mr. C. and the Magazine are, both of them, in the dark—therefore neither of them can be expected to talk any thing very sensible in the case. In regard to them it can only be a question of relative erraticism—whether the old absurdity or the new one, be the more unscriptural!
“Heaven and hell are in our midst every day,” says the Magazine, as quoted by Mr. C., who regards the saying as no evidence of its editorial wisdom. But there is more truth than fiction in the conceit. The present world is the Sinner’s Heaven, and the Saint’s Hell; hence it is styled “an evil world.” If hell be a place of suffering, the Saints have certainly had it here for ages. God has chastened them; and the Sin Power, and all in whom Sin’s spirit reigns, have tormented and destroyed them with dreadful cruelty. While the present state has been the hell of the Saints, it has been a place of Paradise for their enemies. These have the glory, and honour, and power, and riches off the system, at their control. They possess fine farms, well stocked and tilled, and yielding abundance of wealth; splendid mansions; accomplished families, and all that heart can wish. It is the Sinners who possess these things in superfluity; and so much do they enjoy themselves, that they would hold on to them for ever if they could. This is all the heaven they will ever possess, unless they embrace the gospel of the kingdom, and devote their substance to the Lord, and become his stewards of the same. Heaven in this world or state, and heaven in the next, is an allotment granted to none of the sons of men who would partake of the joy of the Lord. Heaven now and hell hereafter; or Hell now and heaven in a future state, are the alternatives presented to mankind under times of knowledge. Who that understands ‘the word of the kingdom’ would prefer the Sinners’ Heaven to the Saints’? Or, who would not rather endure the past and present torments of the Saints in body and estate, than encounter the terrors of the Lord in the Sinner’s hell to come? It is better to pass from a terrestrial heavenly state, as the Saints will do; than to descend from the Sinner’s into a hell to be manifested in the territory of the Fourth Beast of Daniel, for the torment of the goat-nations and their rulers at the appearing of the Lord. A heaven and a hell, then, ‘are in our midst every day;’ but not the heaven of the Saints, nor the hell of the wicked. These have neither of them an existence yet; and can have none till the Lord comes, and literally turns the world upside down.
But the foolishness of the Magazine becomes flagrant in its notion of a ‘posthumous mission to the dead, (who have not before heard the gospel,) in order to translate them from a miserable prison to heaven.’ The ghosts, or disembodied immortal souls, of dead evangelists, I suppose, are to be sent to immortal miserable, or hellish spirits, in the spirit-world, to preach the gospel to them, to induce them to repent, and to exchange their misery for bliss! I do not find what sort of a gospel is to be preached in that mesmeric world; but I suppose the same sky-kingdomism, with spirit-baptism in spirit-water, for spirit-remission of fleshly sins, as contended for by the brotherhood to which the editor of the Christian Magazine belongs! Nearly all hell will doubtless be emptied in twenty-four hours, if the gates be wide enough for the out-rushing crowd, after the spirits of the missionaries arrive, preaching translation to heaven; nearly all, I say, for it is the vast majority alleged to be there, who have never heard of gospel truth.
A gentleman of Pittsburgh, rejoicing in the name of the Church, who constitutes himself ‘armour-bearer’ to my friend the Supervisor, writes concerning the Magazine’s ‘hallucination,’ in the following words: —‘I am truly sorry to see that bro. Ferguson has got a maggot in his brain’—the Caledonians say ‘a bee in his bonnet,’ which is decidedly more elegant. ‘This,’ he continues, ‘will destroy his usefulness and influence,’ that is, in propagating Campbellism; ‘and probably end in his becoming a wandering star, like Mr. Thomas. This figment of bro. Ferguson’s is, in my estimation, infinitely worse than Thomasism. If there be ‘a damnable heresy’ this is unquestionably one. I can see in it a perfect Pandora box. I regard the propagation of such a sentiment as the destruction of all that is vital in religion.’
Poor Mr. Church! What dost thou know of what thou callest ‘Thomasism!’ Many years ago thou didst see a few things from my pen when I was in fellowship with the darkness out of which thou hast not discovered star-light enough to wander for the last twenty years. Thou hast read all the foolishness palmed upon me by thy Supervisor; but of what I really believe and teach, thou art as ignorant as the ‘maggot’ in thy brother’s brain. Whatever it be, it seems there is something ‘infinitely worse’ than what constitutes me ‘a wandering star.’ But if thou knewest what I teach concerning thy religious system, I doubt if thou wouldst favour my supposed views with the admission of an infinite betterment compared with the ‘unquestionably damnable heresy’ before us. Thy religious system is without vitality, and can never live unless what thou dost ignorantly style ‘Thomasism,’ be infused into it, that is, ‘the gospel of the kingdom.’ The bee in thy brother’s bonnet can do the vitality of a corpse no harm. His religion is thy religion, and for all it can offer, a man who understands Moses and the Prophets, would not exchange a pinch of snuff.
* * *
Since the above was written, the eighth number of the Magazine has come to hand. The editor declares that my friend C. has misrepresented him. I regret to be compelled to testify, from dear-brought experience, that he is quite capable of doing so. ‘There is not a statement,’ says the editor, ‘which he makes, with regard to our views, that is true.’ We doubt not but the Magazine knows its own sentiments best; and is quite competent to say if fairly represented or not. Mr. C. does not faithfully quote the scripture; therefore it is not to be expected he will do the fair thing by an opponent. This is a pity; for no end is promoted but evil. But I almost despair of teaching him better manners. Let the Magazine take him in hand, and see if it can make anything of him; may be he is not incorrigible.
The editor cries out for justice, sheer justice, as all he asks; but this, we opine, he’ll never get. We never could obtain it; and his heresy is pronounced to be ‘unquestionably damnable,’ and ‘infinitely worse than’ ours—being destructive of all vital religion. Mr. C. never acknowledges that he has committed, or is in the wrong.
The editor says, that the substance of the whole matter between him and his opponents is the utterance of ‘an opinion, that men who have not heard the gospel will hear it before they are condemned by it.’ By ‘men will hear it,’ I suppose he means disembodied immortal souls will hear it in prison, or hell, as he may define it. For this opinion there is not the shadow of a foundation in the Bible. It is absolutely true, that men who have not heard it will not be condemned by it. They are ‘condemned already’ by the Adamic sentence under which they are born—Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return. From this sentence, nothing can deliver men but the gospel of the kingdom, faithfully obeyed in their present corporeal entity, in the times before Christ appears and shuts the door. Men are not held responsible under ‘times of ignorance;’ for ‘the ground of condemnation is that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light.’ This implies the offer of knowledge and its rejection. Where it has not been offered, there will be no resurrection to gospel-condemnation; this is reserved for those who sin against the light.
We are happy, from the evidence of the present number of the Magazine, to be able to acknowledge that we were mistaken in supposing, that the editor was a mere echo of our Bethanian friend. We have, however, still to complain of misrepresentation at his hands. But Mr. C. is repaying him in full for the measure he meted out to us. I have received no justice from the Magazine, and the Supervisor in return will grant him none. How admirably things work round in this crooked world of ours! “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” So let it be!
EDITOR.
August 10, 1851.
* * *
“SPIRITS IN PRISON.”
“Not the spirits ‘now’ in prison, but the spirits once in prison, while the Ark was preparing, which is, indeed, the key of interpretation. Peter’s key must open Peter’s lock.” But this happens not to be Peter’s key. It is Mr. Campbell’s, and completely fails of even passing the key-hole. He says, the prison was “a figurative prison.” True it was not a gaol; but then a gaol is not the only literal prison. Any place of confinement is a literal prison, be it a gaol, a grave, or a nation enclosing a captive nation. The prison referred to by Peter is manifestly literal; for in speaking of “the spirits” he says they are “in prison.” It is admitted that by “the spirits” are meant “the antediluvians;” now while the ark was preparing they had as much liberty as the unbelieving Jews of Peter’s day, or the people of the United States in ours. They did just what was right in their own eyes. In Noah’s time, they married and gave in marriage, caroused, and enjoyed themselves to their heart’s content, but how was it in Peter’s? They were literally in prison “body, soul, and spirit.” They knew nothing and could do nothing; and so they remain to this day—literally “in prison.”
To ascertain the nature or character of the prison, instead of referring to Moses and the Prophets, Mr. C. speculates on words in usu loquendi. He finds that “the specific idea” of the Greek family of words to which phulakee, “prison,” belongs, “is confinement.” This is doubtless a great discovery. The next revelation is, that “confinement has respect to time, as well as to place.” He ought to have said, “it has reference to place as well as to time,” for a place cannot be a prison independent of time. You may call a building a prison; but if it is to receive persons for no time it never can have an inmate, and therefore cannot be in fact a prison. Thus, whenever men are confined involuntarily for a longer or shorter time, there they are imprisoned, or in prison. Mr. Campbell says, Noah’s contemporaries were imprisoned for 120 years, unless they repented during that term; and he represents the deluge as the limit, or bound, or wall, as it were, of their figurative prison. He does not say where they were to go when set at liberty on repentance or death. Noah, I suppose, was set at liberty when he entered upon a year’s confinement in the Ark! But let that pass. If Noah’s contemporaries were in prison only for 120 years, were they set at liberty when engulfed in the deluge? Will Mr. Campbell tell us? And where do they enjoy their freedom? For liberty implies enjoyment. But, if the antediluvians were “in prison” while they were doing their own pleasure for 120 years, it is evident that Peter’s contemporaries of Israel were also “in prison” “on pain of destruction by a deluge” of war—Daniel 9: 26. Peter’s generation was the antitype of Noah’s; so that if the latter were in prison during Noah’s preaching by the Spirit for 120 years; the former were likewise for the forty years the same Spirit preached to them by Jesus and his apostles. “Noah,” says he, “by word and deed, preached to them repentance or death.” He preached to them in prison, did he? Yes. They did not repent? —No; therefore they were put to death at the end of their imprisonment! If this be granted, when sentence was executed they were then no longer in prison! This is the conclusion we are led to by Mr. Campbell’s premises!
Death, in the scriptures is styled “captivity” which was “led captive” by Jesus in rising from among the dead as the first fruits of a future resurrection. But Mr. Campbell’s speculation makes death, liberality; and by consequence, all the dead, freemen escaped from the figurative prison above ground! This is “the key of interpretation” Mr. Campbell uses in his attempt to demonstrate, that his own former rendering of Peter’s phrase “the spirits in prison” by “the spirits now in prison,” is “a mere speculative fancy.” This is another among many instances adducible, of “Campbell against himself.” But there is no telling what lengths a man will go to in stultifying himself when he undertakes to interpret the apostles without regard to Moses and the Prophets. He has not found Peter’s key yet. The apostle’s is a lock that cannot be picked by any human invention. Immortal-soulism is a pick that cannot reach the bolt; and disables all that work by it from opening the prison door. But for this crotchet, Mr. C. would not have forged so fanciful an interpretation, which he has just constructed for the occasion to get quit of the editor of the “Magazine’s” opinion, which is a natural inference from his own speculations upon “Life and Death.”
There is nothing in the text or context to prove that the antediluvians were in prison in any other sense than that all mankind are in the “bondage of corruption,” during Noah’s preaching. Speaking of the Holy Spirit it says “having gone he preached to the spirits * * * formerly disobedient.” When? “In the days of Noah.” Where were they in Peter’s day? “In prison;” therefore they are called “spirits in prison.” Where the prison is must be determined by “the law and the testimony,” not by reference to “the established laws of” sectarian “criticism,” however “sound” it may be supposed to be.
EDITOR.
* * *
SALVATION WITHOUT FAITH!
“He that believeth not shall be condemned.”—JESUS CHRIST.
Dear Brother:
Conversing a few days ago on the merits of Elpis Israel, one of the brethren who had read it, stated his concurrence in most of the things therein contained. But after all, he says he cannot assent to the exclusion of the heathen, &c., from the salvation promised in the gospel.
The salvation of the heathen then became the subject of discussion between us; brethren D. and B. contending for their salvation on some other principle than that of faith in the gospel; and I for it on no other.
I attempted to prove, and I think did prove, that the faith was the only principle laid down in the Old and New Scriptures upon which a man can be saved; and that they made no exception in relation to the heathen. To this they objected; and in support of their opinion quoted the second chapter of Romans. I demurred to this, that “Gentile” there spoken of as keeping “The righteousness of the law,” could not mean the Gentiles in the sense understood by them, —a good, conscientious, virtuous, benevolent Gentile; but a gentile christian. In support of this I attempted to show that, if a gentile could, without ever having heard, or read the law, keep the righteousness of the law, so might a Jew have done; and then there would have been no need of having the law given to them; and thereby much trouble and expense have been saved. —Upon this we separated without coming to any agreement.
I write these few words, therefore, to request you to interpret the Bible teaching on this subject. The term “nature” seems to be the stronghold of the two brethren, and, indeed, of all natural religionists; and the second of Romans the chapter most relied on to prove this most mischievous of all traditions, “Natural Religion.” If you can spare time, we should like to know if the heathen, by beholding the works of the Great Architect of the universe ever came to a knowledge of the living and true God, so as acceptably to worship him, or attain to salvation; or, has the mind of a gentile ever been so operated on by the contemplation of the wonderful works of creation as to impart to him a right to incorruptibility and life?
The doctrine of the Kingdom and Hope of Israel as exhibited by Jesus, the apostles, and yourself, is gaining ground here. I have returned hither (after an absence of three years) where once I met with such decided opposition from the brethren of “the reformation” in the advocacy of these sentiments; and now I meet with but few who do not entertain the same: not that I feel a pride in having first contended for them here; but because I rejoice in the spread of the gospel, and delight to see the Kingdom preached though for the sake of contention only.
Yours faithfully,
E. J. H. WHITE, M. D.
Fayette, Mississippi.
* * *
HEATHEN DEFINED—THE GOSPEL IS FOR THE SALVATION OF THE HEATHEN THROUGH
BELIEF OF IT—NONE SAVED BUT THE DOERS OF THE WORD—IGNORANCE ALIENATES FROM
ETERNAL LIFE—NATURE’S LOGIC—NATURE DEFINED—ORIGIN OF NATUTAL RELIGION—ITS
INVENTERS INDICATED—THINGS IN WHICH THEY AGREE—NATURAL RELIGION AND GOD’S
RELIGION IRRECONCILABLE ENEMIES—“BY NATURE” EXPLAINED—HEART CIRCUMCISED
GENTILES AND JEWS TO INHERIT THE PROMISES.
Heathen is the Saxon equivalent for the Greek word ethnos, and the Hebrew goi, and properly signifies nation. It is in this sense that it is used in the sacred scriptures. The word Gentile is of the same import, only derived from the Latin gens. All nations, except Israel, being under “times of ignorance,” were merged in hopeless superstition; so that to be of the nations was equivalent to being an idolater: the word heathen, therefore, came to represent a man, or nations, worshipping idols; though the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin originals, are never used in this sense in the scriptures.
The salvation promised in the gospel is the salvation of Israel and the Heathen, in the sense of blessing all nations in Abraham and his Seed, on the principle of individual and national faith and obedience. The gospel has been preached for eighteen centuries to the nations for the salvation of heathen, in the sense of idolaters and natural religionists—“to take out from the Gentiles a people for God’s name.” This people are to be the immortal rulers of the nations, or heathen, in the Age to Come; when the heathen, no longer idolaters and natural religionists, shall be enlightened and “serving the Lord with one consent.” They are then “the nations of the saved,” sitting under their own vines and fig trees, with no tyrants to destroy them, and make them afraid as now. The separation of mankind into nations, however, is finally to cease; and all of the race who attain to eternal life will be merged into Israel then become immortal, by “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body;” as it is written, “I will make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, O Israel, but I will not make a full end of thee”—Jeremiah 30: 11. The last eighteen centuries has been “the Day of Salvation,” the “accepted time,” a day of probation for individuals, who aspire to the glory, honour, and immortality of the Kingdom, as the reward of “the righteousness which is by faith:” the coming thousand years will be a day of blessedness and probation to the nations, saved from the evils now besetting them; in which vastly greater multitudes than now or heretofore, will become heirs of immortality and earth-inhabitation for ever, when the thousand years shall have passed away.
But, what the brethren D. and B. want to know is, is there not salvation from hell for idolaters, and natural religionists, idiots, and sucklings, now, without believing the gospel and being baptised? —They, and not they only, but all antichristendom, say there is salvation for them. —But the Bible has nothing to do with the soul hell they speak of. The salvation it proclaims is the deliverance of God’s people from sin, death, and the grave, and the bestowal upon them of glory and honour forever in his kingdom; and the deliverance of the nations, as already stated. —If they modify their proposition, and affirm that the parties indicated have part in this salvation without faith and its obedience, there is something tangible to lay hold of. Well, if it be so, it can be easily proved. There are the scriptures, show us the testimony; for the burden of proof lies upon D. and B. and the natural religionists. Ah, here they come with the second chapter of the letter to the Romans, telling us that the salvation of sinners without the obedience of faith is taught there! Now behold the proof—
“When the
Gentiles having not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,
these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: who show the work of
the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.”
But I object to this as perfectly irrelevant, having not the least reference to idol worshippers, or the unenlightened. It refers to Gentile “doers of the law,” in the sense of their being justified by that system of righteousness which is “testified by the law and the prophets.” The “work of the law is written in the hearts” of such persons only, be they Jews or Gentiles. Of Israel under the New Covenant Jehovah says,
“I
will put my laws into their mind, and write them upon their hearts.”
How is this done? Take an illustration from the doings on Pentecost. —The righteousness testified by the law and the prophets was put into the mind of the assembled multitude by the voice of the apostles; and written indelibly on their hearts by the divine attestation which miraculously confirmed it. The same thing occurred to the Gentiles afterwards at Cornelius’, where the work of the law was written on the hearts of all his company. When the law was thus written, they “showed the work of the law” in loving the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all their mind, and their neighbours as themselves, in which all the law and the prophets are obeyed—Matthew 22: 37-40; 7: 12; “for love is the fulfilling,” or doing, “of the law”—Romans 13: 10.
The natural religionists do not fairly quote their proof text. They should quote the whole passage. Their text is a reason given in support of the affirmation contained in the preceding verse, which they ought to have quoted to show what the apostle was writing about. The omitted words are, “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” And even this is but the reason of another affirmation in the verse before, which declares that “as many as have sinned without law (that is, the Gentiles, who were never within the jurisdiction of the law) shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in (or under) the law (that is, the Jews to whom it was enjoined) shall be judged by the law; in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” This declaration is contained in the twelfth and sixteenth verses, the proof text of the natural religionists being the fourteenth and fifteenth, which, with the omitted thirteenth, are a parenthesis between. But again, all these verses even are but illustrative off the eleventh; which is itself the reason why God will render to both Jews and Gentiles according to their deeds, as stated from the seventh to the tenth verses both inclusive, that is, “Because there is no respect of persons with him.” Now, from the sixth to the sixteenth verses of the second chapter the doctrine taught is, that Jews and Gentiles are all in the same category with respect to the gospel; because, from the eighteenth verse of chapter one to the fifth of chapter two, the apostle had there “proved, that they are all under sin,” none being righteous, “no, not one;” and “all the world” consequently “guilty before God”—Romans 3: 9, 19. Mankind, then, being none of them “doers of the law,” none of them are justified; and without justification there is no salvation. —What remains, therefore, is only a question of condemnation. Are Jews and Gentiles, equally vile in their conduct before God, to be subjected to execution in the same way? No; the Jews sinning against light, deserve a sorer punishment than the Gentiles who sin under “times of ignorance;” therefore, the Gentiles die and perish; while the Jews are reserved for judgment and execution till the day yet future, when Jesus Christ shall judge them “at his appearing in his Kingdom,” as taught of Paul in the gospel he preached. This implies the non-resurrection of those who being without law sin in times of ignorance; and the resurrection of those who sin under law. Of the former class, it is written in the prophet,
“They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish”—Isaiah 26: 14:
But of them under law, it is written,
“All they in the graves (pantis hoe en tois mnemeiois) shall hear of the Son of Man’s voice, and come forth; they having done good things for a resurrection of life; but they having worked evil things, for a resurrection of judgment”—John 5: 28-29.
So much for the guilty who are all under sin, and therefore heirs of death, being “condemned already.” But, whether that death shall be “unto death” so as to end therein; or, the sinners without law, and under law, shall pass from under sentence of death, and come under a sentence unto eternal life, depends upon both classes becoming obedient to the truth, or “doers of the word:” for it is “he who looks narrowly into the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of work, he shall be blessed in his doing”—James 1: 22, 25.
The Jews and Gentiles in the days of the apostles were all in the same state with respect to God that the idolaters and natural religionists are at the present time—
“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the perverseness of their heart”—Ephesians 4: 18.
Truth is ever the same. It is therefore as true now as when written, that ignorance alienates from God’s life. Let D. and B. look at this principle without blinking. —Their theory demands the salvation of creatures in their ignorance of “the knowledge of God, and of Jesus the Lord;” but the scriptures place an emphatic veto on the notion, and declare that, “Except a man be converted, and become as a little child, he can in no wise enter the Kingdom of God;” and out of that Kingdom there is no salvation. And again, “Except a man be born of water and of spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God;” which is equivalent to saying, ‘Except a man believe the gospel of the Kingdom, and is baptised, and raised from the dead incorruptible and immortal, he cannot be saved.’ There is no bliss in ignorance of God’s truth; if there were it would be folly to be wise; because wisdom and knowledge make responsible. —If the ignorant were in a salvable state, it was cruel to send Paul to them, “to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness,” or ignorance, “to light,” or knowledge, because, in so doing, he was bringing them into the jeopardy of persecution, and the hazard of the sorer punishment which is to devour the adversaries at the coming of the Lord. But the truth is, that neither Jews nor Gentiles, of any age, sex, or condition, can be saved, or “inherit the Kingdom,” which is the same thing, who live and die in their ignorance of the truth.
“This is life eternal, that men should know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Paul was therefore sent “to turn them from the power of Satan to God” by enlightening them, “that they might receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith that is in Jesus”—Acts 26: 18. Now, I argue